MaxwellGT2000 said:
Normally I agree, but lots of the claims over the years have been pretty obvious that they're false and well SOMEONE had to say it might as well be someone that has shown what the hardware can do. And hey man everyone starts out somewhere, Blizzard started out making pretty poor games until they made a couple that took off, Guerilla Games had almost the EXACT same track record of making terrible games until they made Shellshock Nam, was then bought by Sony, and now makes Killzone. |
I agree Maxwell, I don't see them as cocky. They called out the larger third parties for saying the Wii isn't capable of graphical feats that are built into the hardware. Even if the Conduit turns out to be trash, they've still proved themselves from a technical standpoint. The simple fact of the matter is that third parties never learned the Gamecube hardware so they continually make themselves look foolish with the Wii.
Rogue Squadron 2 was Gamecube launch title it featured bump mapping, shaders, pretty much every effect the Flipper was capable of and it had a short development cycle. For third parties to claim that the Wii can't do things that the weaker Gamecube could do is laughable. Lucasarts wanted Factor 5 to port Rogue Squadron 2 and 3 to Xbox and they couldn't get it up in running because Xbox was incapable of running game at the same quality.
The Gamecube and X-box were more or less equal, so it goes with out saying that the Wii is more poweful than the Xbox. The Gamecube had the superior CPU, faster RAM, and a GPU with better lighting and texturing capability. The X-box had nearly 50% more RAM, a GPU with more raw power, and hard drive to cache to. The Wii has nearly 50% more RAM than the X-box, a far superior CPU, faster RAM, and a GPU with a higher fillrate/better lighting/better texturing. The X-box has two advanatages over the Wii though. It has a hard drive to cache to and it can output video in HD.
